AIM: To evaluate fracture resistance and gap/void presence of root-filled mandibular molars restored with 2 bulk-fill and 1 conventional resin composites, with or without a glass-ionomer cement (GIC) base. METHODS: Coronal access and mesio-occlusal (MO) cavities were prepared, then root canal treatment was performed on 30 mol/L. The teeth were randomly divided, according to the cavity volume, into 6 experimental groups (N = 5) and restored with conventional/light-cured (Ceram-X), bulk-fill/light-cured (SureFil SDR) or bulk-fill/dual-cured (Core-X Flow) with/without a 2-mm thick GIC base. Gaps and voids (%) were determined using microcomputed tomography. Intact teeth and unrestored teeth were used as negative and positive controls. Fracture load (N) was determined using a universal testing machine. RESULTS: No significant difference in fracture resistance or gap/void formation was found among the 3 resin composites. GIC-base groups revealed significantly lower fracture strength than intact teeth, while fracture strengths of no GIC-base groups were not significantly different from intact teeth. GIC-base groups revealed significantly more gaps and voids in the area of the GIC than the resin composite. CONCLUSION: Conventional and bulk-fill resin composites provided similar fracture resistance and gaps/voids in root-filled molars with MO cavities. Placing a GIC base decreased fracture resistance and increased gap/void formation.
AIM: To evaluate fracture resistance and gap/void presence of root-filled mandibular molars restored with 2 bulk-fill and 1 conventional resin composites, with or without a glass-ionomer cement (GIC) base. METHODS: Coronal access and mesio-occlusal (MO) cavities were prepared, then root canal treatment was performed on 30 mol/L. The teeth were randomly divided, according to the cavity volume, into 6 experimental groups (N = 5) and restored with conventional/light-cured (Ceram-X), bulk-fill/light-cured (SureFil SDR) or bulk-fill/dual-cured (Core-X Flow) with/without a 2-mm thick GIC base. Gaps and voids (%) were determined using microcomputed tomography. Intact teeth and unrestored teeth were used as negative and positive controls. Fracture load (N) was determined using a universal testing machine. RESULTS: No significant difference in fracture resistance or gap/void formation was found among the 3 resin composites. GIC-base groups revealed significantly lower fracture strength than intact teeth, while fracture strengths of no GIC-base groups were not significantly different from intact teeth. GIC-base groups revealed significantly more gaps and voids in the area of the GIC than the resin composite. CONCLUSION: Conventional and bulk-fill resin composites provided similar fracture resistance and gaps/voids in root-filled molars with MO cavities. Placing a GIC base decreased fracture resistance and increased gap/void formation.